What the gun lobby does not want you to know

Recent polls show us that red-state democratic Senators Landrieu and Hagan boosted their re-election opportunity by supporting the background checks legislation. Both are facing difficult challenges next year in home states that Mitt Romney won in 2012. It should be noted that both Sen. Landrieu and Sen. Hagan were among the final Democrats to support the background check legislation that finally failed to get the necessary 60 votes in the Senate. Four red-state Democrats actually joined the Republicans to vote against the legislation. Their polling numbers also went down.

In Louisiana 71 percent of voters support “requiring background checks for all gun sales, including gun shows and the Internet.” In fact 44% of voters there said they are more likely to back Sen. Landrieu in 2014 as a result of her “yea” vote. Polls also illustrate that about 25% of Sen. Landrieu’s home-state voters said they are less likely to support her. Another 29% said her vote made no difference whatsoever. This is good news for Sen. Landrieu.

Meanwhile Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) was given very low approval for his opposition to the background checks legislation. About 40% of voters are less likely to support Vitter, who will be up for re-election in 2016.

73% of the voters in North Carolina favor more effective background checks. 52% said they are more likely to vote for Sen. Hagan in 2014 because because of her vote in favor of the background check legislation. However Sen. Hagan’s Republican republican suffered a serious setback by opposing the bill. About 50% of North Carolina voters are now less likely to support republican Sen. Richard Burr due to his “nay” vote on the background check legislation. Sen. Burr is up for re-election in 2016.

At the same time republican Sen. Kelly Ayotte experienced a dramatically negative response in her state of New Hampshire due to her “nay” vote. Her polling numbers dropped over 15 points. At a recent town hall meeting Sen. Ayotte was even confronted by Erica Lafferty who is the daughter of a woman who was killed in the mass shooting in Newtown, Conn. The new coverage was devastating for Ms. Ayotte who has recently stated that she may reconsider her vote if some minor cosmetic changes are effected.

It is clear that the republicans and blue dog democrats are feeling the heat. For instance Arizona republican Sen. Jeff Flake’s approval rating fell all the way down to 32% after his nay vote. Yet a Quinnipiac University poll illustrated that Republican Sen. Pat Toomey, a co-authors of the background checks legislation, experienced a dramatic upward bounce for his efforts to create the bipartisan bill.

While the gun lobby and their propaganda affiliate the NRA try to tell us that the gun debate is calming down and that most Americans support unlimited access to guns, the people themselves are telling us a different story. It would be wise for the gun lobby politicians to pay attention to them.

123 Responses

I support background checks, but we have those already. Private sales? Well, that’s a problem. You see, the federal and state governments have no clue about how they will enforce or pay for that provision, and they probably never will.

@LW….so.move to California! You will fit right in and should feel so much more secure than here in crime-ridden New York. You shouldn’t have to worry about those pesky Latin Kings, MS-13, Crips, Bloods, etc., because when they voluntarily surrender their guns the only threat to your well-being will be baseball bats and pen knives.

@Lathamguy
The first time I saw that tactic used was while I was in the service during Viet Nam. “America. love it or leave it” was the catch phrase in those days. Almost exactly what you are saying now, in a regional manner of course.

Well it was dumb then and it is dumb now.

We are Americans. Each of us free to engage fully in the gift of life, the guarantee of liberty and pursuit of happiness. The heart of that wonderful phrase was concieved and written into our national heritage long before the 2nd amendment was even considered.

All we are asking is that gun owners show some responsibility. Most do. Most are embarrassed by the radical rhetoric of the NRA and others.

On the other hand some including yourself make bogus claims of “they are coming to get our guns” with the result of the weapons industry generating even more profit from fear. Incongruously you expect the rest of us are to simply tolerate it. Not me. Not many.

Should it be considered, a recognized “cause and effect”, that the combination of a significantly declining incidences of gun violence (1993-2011 decline of 69%) and a significantly declining incidences of gun related fatalities (1992-2011 decline of 49%) coupled with a dramatic increase in gun ownership, suggests increased personal firarem ownership is responsible for the declining rate of gun violence?

Add to that the reality that the most serious gun violence incidences in recent years have occurred at locations that advertised, either directly or indirectly, that they were “gun free” locations?

Invent any reason you like for the drop in crime, but the common wisdom among social scientists is that it had more to do with the aging of the baby boomers, the popularity of birth control and availability of legal abortions, and incarceration. The age cohort where people are more likely to commit violent crimes shrank (whether from being in prison or never having been born in the first place,) therefore, crime followed suit.

Regardless of sales volume, the percentage of households owning guns have also been in decline. These are things you can easily look up.

@ Tim
Interesting and challenging thesis and I thank you for it. Hard to understand how placing people in prisons cut the crime rate though. Let me explain.

The flaw I see in your research and reasoning is that prisons are universities for criminals. For some of the younger convicts it is their first brush with gang-life and out of necessity they are swept up into it.

The other thing that I question in your thesis of lower crime is the existence of the gang armies and their brutal killings. They are smaller mafia’s but more much wealthier, heavily armed and even more ruthless. They secretly control enormous empires and hold a tremendous amount of power. Their criminal activity is often international in scope with illegal contraband coming and going from several hemispheres at once.

This is what happens instead of careers in health care or land management or housing etc. Certainly not every person who turns to crime could have been turned away but the negative process is overwhelming and in my opinion it is costing out nation more than just wealth. It is costing us our future.

You are right about the boomers. They are greying and because of Viet Nam, AIDS, drugs, cancer etc. they are fading. The bad news is that the modern criminal is nothing like the old school. Nothing at all. I wonder if it is even on the radar yet.

30 gun deaths a day, may not be an acceptable number, but apparently it is a dramatically improving number, going in the right direction. You neglected to answer if you think the rise in personal gun ownership, in recent years, is a relevant factor if the dramatic rate of gun violence decline over the past 20 years.

Since it is indisputable that a designation of a location as being “gun free”, seems to have evolved into a magnet for drawing those responsible for mass murders, do you acknowledge that labeling a location as “gun free” is a serious mistake?

I think it is far more likely due to the fact that far fewer homes have guns. The same people are buying guns over and over thereby making the gun manufacturers and dealers wealthy, but doing nothing to make us safer. Just the opposite in fact. The way to deal with the on-going slaughter is through more effective laws. That is vividly clear to the majority of Americans even if you refuse to believe the obvious.

Lawrence, it can’t be claimed that “fewer homes have guns”. There has been a drop in the percentage of homes with guns, yes, but at the same time there has also been a dramatic increase in gun ownership, just not equal to or exceeding the increase in population, therefore, the numbers rise, but the percentage drops. Your claim that “The same people are buying guns over and over” can’t be substantiated. While it’s true that many gun owners own multiple guns, and some are collectors that continue to buy more and more, data from states like Illinois(where you have to register to own any gun) suggests that there has been a steady increase in NEW gun owners over time.

Really Lawrence? I specifically mentioned Illinois, because their FOID system can be used to discount that particular claim. One has to register in the FOID system to become a (legal)gun owner in that state(not to buy a gun, but to legally own guns), and it has shown a steady increase since its inception(1968), with massive spikes in applicants around time periods where gun control is debated. These aren’t “the same people buying guns”, these are new gun owners. And the number of homes owning guns has not gone down. The percentage went down, but the actual number rose. The drop in percentage simply means the population grew at a disproportionate rate to gun ownership. It in no way suggests that gun ownership decreased.
But these facts are inconvenient to those of you that insist on painting all gun owners as “gun nuts”, corrupted by an “evil industry”, building up an arsenal, and ready to crack and start blowing people away at any moment. So you simply choose to ignore them.

According to scientific data collected by General Social Survey the gun ownership rate has fallen since the early 1970s.

The rate has dropped in cities large and small, in suburbs and rural areas and in all regions of the country. It has fallen among households with children, and among those without. It has declined for households that say they are very happy, and for those that say they are not. It is down among churchgoers and those who never sit in pews.

The household gun ownership rate has fallen from an average of 50 percent in the 1970s to 49 percent in the 1980s, 43 percent in the 1990s and 35 percent in the 2000s, according to the survey data.

Again, you are ignoring the fact that the number of gun owners isn’t what dropped, it is the number IN RELATION TO the population, which has increased dramatically. As long as the population grows faster than gun ownership, you will get these numbers. All this implies is that population growth has outpaced the growth of gun ownership. To imply otherwise is misleading.

Also the disclaimer provided by GSS lends doubt to the validity of their numbers
“There is no definitive data source from the government or elsewhere on how many Americans own guns or how gun ownership rates have changed over time. Also, public opinion surveys provide conflicting results: Some show a decline in the number of households with guns, but another does not.”

@ Vin
I believe the data is clear. America’s romance with guns has ended except for the same crowd that keeps buying them. To many of us are familiar with gun violence victims or have experienced violence ourselves to fall for the NRA’s propaganda.

What’s with not approving my last post, Lawrence? Did I somehow offend you by using simplified terms to explain why a drop in percentage doesn’t equal a drop in actual numbers? You didn’t seem to be understanding it in any other terms I tried to use (actually you seemed to be willfully ignoring it), though it strikes me as a fairly simple concept. Or did you find issue with me pointing out(again) that GSS stated that the data you “believe is clear” is anything but.

Or was it because you finally ran out of seemingly rational ways to refute my statements and simply refused to give up the appearance of having had the “last word”.

We have gone over this a few times Vin. Even gallup who disputes the other numbers says that 43 percent of Americans report having guns in their homes a drop of over 10 points from the high of a few year previously.

So you have said your piece and I have said mine. I am willing to allow those who read our debate to make up their own minds but I am not going to post the same comment from you over and over again. Perhaps you have another point you would like to make.

I always thought that the arguments for or against strong gun control are easily put into perspective by viewing what actually happens in the real world. And the data is there. Firearms are VERY tightly controlled in the United Kingdom. In fact, there isn’t much public debate about it there. The public is largely supportive. And of course, there are still gun clubs and hunters there. The UK has one of the lowest rates of gun homicides in the world (0.07 recorded firearm homicides committed annually per 100,000 inhabitants). Our rate here in the US is forty times higher. That’s right. Not twice as high, not ten or twenty time higher, but forty times higher. Effective gun control can indeed save lives without unduly restricting personal freedom. I’d like to hear the argument why the US model of minimal control is preferable to the UK model, giving due consideration to the actual results.

Thing is michael, England’s crime statistics are kind of(to use a british term) “manky”. For one, the only crimes that get counted are ones that result in a conviction. IE, if 2 people get gunned down in London and NYC, respectively, and the killer never gets caught in either case, the one in NYC still counts as a gun crime, and the one in London doesn’t. When the same system is used to rate both cities, London actually tends to edge NYC out by a small margin. Second, there have been frequent accusations of police in England intentionally ignoring violent crime to try to keep the numbers down, in order to boost tourism.

Nice try Vin. So that’s your position? That we actually have no more gun deaths than the UK (per capita) and the apparent whopper of a difference I cited was simply statistical fudging? Sure. The UK stats I reference were compiled by Eurostat, which is the statistical department of the European Union. The stats were for gun homicides RECORDED BY THE POLICE, and NOT convictions.

NYC vs. London. Very good! Of course, you fail to mention that the rate of gun deaths per capita in NYC is nearly the lowest of all major US cities! That’s true. You know why? Here’s an excerpt from that liberal rag, the NY Post –

“Deaths by gunfire in the city are down dramatically, far lower than the national rate, according to a new study — and Mayor Bloomberg credited his policing strategies for the downturn.

In his weekly radio address yesterday, Bloomberg credited the city’s tough gun-possession laws and “smart, proactive policing that makes it much more likely that if you break our city’s gun laws, you’ll be caught.”

I just saw a breaking news report on one of the wire services. President Assad of Syria has announced he has adopted the draconian provisions of the New York SAFE Act to keep firearms out of the hands of the rebel forces. He predicts an end to hostilities within the week, just as soon as the rebels register their firearms and surrender those pesky Kalashnikov AK-47s. Peace at last!!!

Lathamguy
As I read the first part of your comment my heart started to rise. Of course the killing in Syria is beyond description. Ghastly beyond our understanding. When I thought even for an instant that some sort of agreement had been reached it was a powerful sense of relief.

Consider the fact that the same weapons industry that is flooding our society with small arms – flooded Syria with most of the weapons that are being used on both sides. That is how they work. They don’t care which side you are on. If they can sell you weapons – they will sell you weapons. Death is their bread and butter and the weapons industry has enjoyed a ghastly buffet in the middle east.

But then as I read on I realized your comment was just another shallow, childish response from someone who has absolutely no idea what they are talking about. Excuse me for being disappointed.

It seems like this discussion is running out of gas and getting deeper and deeper into the weeds. There seems to be polar opposite positions, with all sorts of increments inbetween, that most have alreadt reached their personal conclusions about.

Whether these discussions have drawn the actual understanding of terms like “reasonable”, “practical”, “appropriate” or the meaning of the term “infringe” any closer together, remains to be seen, but at least have proven, that silly accusations and insults don’t have any material effect on the conversation or the direction it may be heading.

These discussions have also solidified the intent of the human design to include two ears and only one mouth, although the inherent lesson that implies a value to listening to twice as much as we speak, still seems woefully lacking in acceptance.

Despite all the statistics, both valid and bogus, the lamentations, the complaining, demagoguery, phoney accusations (exclusively about the evil intentions of OTHERS) childish insults and threats of the sky falling the needle seems solidy locked in place between positions, with precious little, if any, chance of movement in either direction.

I’m afraid unless, and until, both sides are at least willing to consider giving ground, neither side has any chance of getting anything.

@ Albert
This blog has a lot of visitors everyday. You may not change my mind nor I yours. However those people who read our debate points will be effected. I am willing to continue the debate on that basis.

Albert J – That is exactly why you are working so hard to keep that needle in the center, ground that has already been corrupted by the Right to the point where they pretty much get their way, be it economic, or in arming up and motivating their clueless base against the day they can be fired up to carry out politics by other means. It is no secret that population demographics are going to threaten to take back the corrupted center ground, and threaten the sweet deal the rich created for themselves (and for whom you expend so much effort), unless society can be restructured to overlook such quaint ideals of equal rights, one person-one vote, and that 1/2 of all wealth, in a healthy and regulated Capitalist society (not the thief run operation we have now)is not sustainable without ending our experiment in representative democracy.

I hope Lawrence, when he showed his willingness to continue to carry on a dialog with you, that that may please you very much, especially if you are being paid by word-count.

@Albert
I agree that the debate does at times appear to have reached a stalemate. But I also agree with Lawrence that everyday somebody new stumbles in, and the issues we discuss also get a new dose of energy from the media headlines. There is still a considerable amount of misinformation out there, and maybe, just maybe we can all learn from each other. It would be my hope that the Manchin-Toomey Bill will gain some steam, as it is indeed a compromise for both sides. A background check as opposed to a “universal” background check, with strong language to prevent a national registry. Time will tell.

Someone please take the compass away from Albert! He thinks “this discussion is running out of gas and getting deeper and deeper into the weeds,” when in fact this discussion has finally hit the big time and is finally out in the daylight.

Perhaps that’s just Albert’s way of telling us he’s run out of ammunition and has nothing positive left to contribute? I mean, considering all of the statistics, both valid and bogus, the lamentations, the complaining, demagoguery, phony accusations (exclusively about the evil intentions of OTHERS) childish insults and threats of the sky falling he’s been throwing out, it’s no wonder he’s run out of words.

Tony B – The level of paranoia and Right-wing doctrinaire dogma (including a good measure of fear and ignorance driven bigotry) expressed by these off-shoots away from the intellectual branch of Human evolutionary development, are the very people we should not trust with firearms of any kind, especially since they have expressed the not quite so hidden possibility that they would be more than willing to exercise what that paragon of intellectual absurdity, Sharron Angle called “Second Amendment remedies”, to correct what they perceive is the threat against their narrow bigoted beliefs, that a majority just might correct in the proscribed, proper and constitutional way, in the voting booth.

Forgive me for apparently conveying a message, somewhat stronger, than intended. I wasn’t suggesting ending discussion, rather I was trying to suggest that beating the same dead horses over and over again, appears to have run it’s course and seems to serve the only purpose of digging heels deeper into hard ground.

As events happen and situations change the discussion will hopefully follow as there is an issue to be improved, if not resolved. Extending Background checks to other than retail firearm sales seemed like an issue on which to find consensus, and perhaps some reasonable give and take and mofification of the language may still enable that to happen, so both sides can be comfortable with the final version.

Sadly, there is a significant measure of really dopey insistance that in and of itself is going nowhere, but beyond that creates so much fog and useless noise to accomplish nothing but distraction and shift the focus away from areas of potential agreement.

By definition, “Compromise” requires “mutual concession” which translates to movement from both sides towards an agreeable settlement that is able to satisfy both sides, short of either extreme, which it appears some simply cannot, or just will not, force themselves to consider, much less accept.

Denigrating an opposite position, rather than demonstrating the advantages of your position, rarely produces anything worthwhile except when you may be trying to crown the queen of the pigs.

@ Albert J
Both sides can be comfortable with the final version when one side realizes that they denied 90% of Americans the law they wanted in the first place. If not, the election in 2014 should take care of it.

Yet both sides get some of what they want. This is not how the republicans operate any more though. They vote in lock step with the far right whose only interest is to destroy the Obama Presidency no matter how much it harms the country. They will even vote against or block their own legislation if the President endorses it.

“Denigrating an opposite position, rather than demonstrating the advantages of your position, rarely produces anything worthwhile except when you may be trying to crown the queen of the pigs.”

Wow Al, how profound! From the man who posted the following – “It seems the only thing vivid may be your imagination and the state of denial you seem locked in regarding the reality that contradicts your fantasies.”

Then again, your observation that perhaps “…increased personal firearm ownership is responsible for the declining rate of gun violence” is clearly a “demonstration of the advantages of your position.” Now that is a stunning breakthrough in reducing gun violence, more guns! Who’d of thunk it?

Before you make such statements, do you actually re-read the things you posted earlier?

Lawrence:
“I think it is far more likely due to the fact that far fewer homes have guns. The same people are buying guns over and over thereby making the gun manufacturers and dealers wealthy, but doing nothing to make us safer.”

I beg to differ. I just got back from a firearm store. I asked the owner about who is buying all these rifles etc and its not just previous owners, actually, the opposite. People who had never owned or are returning to the hobby, are the biggest purchasers.

Also on the way home I stopped at the store and ran into one of the county judges. He told me that in all his years, he had never seen so many NEW pistol applications. It will take him months to clear this backlog.

The judge in Schenectady likes to interview each person he issues a pistol permit, but now, he has to do 10 at a time….

This is NOT due to advertising by the manufacturers or the firearm dealers. CNN, MSNBC et al do a good job detailing each shooting, Bloomburg with his adverts, Michael Moore and Pierce Morgan… Well…

I believe people are beginning to wake up. Starting to see some of these numbers being spouted are in fact, wrong. They know people who own firearms and never killed anyone or had anyone hurt by them.
Look at the number of states nullifying federal gun control laws. All constitutional.

@ Julie
I would say that you have done a great job of putting the best possible spin on a product disaster.

Here is the problem you have Julie. More people were killed by guns today. More will be killed tomorrow and the day after that. Our nation will have a body count that will continue to surpasses most other nations put together. It is not like there is going to be a lull in killing. More guns, more gun deaths. That is how it works no matter what the weapons industry advertising tell us. More gun deaths means more people will be effected by these ongoing tragedies and those people will no longer believe the hype that all is well if you just buy a gun. That is called a product disaster.

Yes, there is a gun panic in America. A sort of mad feeding frenzy. You can not even find bullets for sale because of the panic. Yes, the NRA has done a wonderful job for the weapons industry by pumping unending paranoia in the collective conscious sand those who believed that sales pitch rushed to buy more guns. Why? Well because Obama is coming to take them away. What hype, but it sells and that is just how it was planned.

It seems to me that debate is between old fashioned common sense and fallacious industrial promotional paranoia. Most Americans realize the extreme danger that a gun in the home represents and they wisely opt out. That is what the data shows and the trend is clear.

@ Julie
When you consider the number of guns in this country and then consider the 47,000 you post it is clear this is a minute amount. In addition it is unclear how many of those applications will be approved by Conn. They just passed one of the toughest sets of gun regulations in the country. That is why the weapons industry is moaning. The people of this country are fed up with profit from paranoia. The days of the old liberal gun laws are over and as time goes by guns will be treated just like every other deadly product in our society.

As I have stated – there is a lot panic buying of guns. This includes people who are afraid of people with guns so they get a gun themselves. The weapons industry is lapping it up. Fear sells and they pump it out as endless advertising.

It just is not working anymore. The same people keep buying guns with a cluster of people who are buying out of panic. This is a classic product disaster of historic proportions and it is not going to get better until it is corrected.

LOL. You are so predictable. We know, 30 people a day. Its getting lower and lower. All without your help and daily dialog.

Your backing a bad horse here man. Benghazi is blowing up and the IRS is being investigated for helping the liberals…. But you’ll still back them up with the 90% quote and schmoozing up to Cuomo and his laws.

If you go to the gun store they will sell you what they want to sell you. If you go to the butcher they will sell you meatloaf because it is made out of yesterday’s meat. If you go to the shoe store…..oh. Wait. Never mind that example. You and Amy P don’t buy shoes.

As for the sale? I am an informed consumer. My .22 target pistol for example, was made in 1984. Why that one? Because it fell in a manufacture band/version I prefer. Took longer to find, but worth the wait in my opinion.

The judge said that it is NOT the law abiding citizens causing this problem. It IS the criminals. That has been pointed out many times and cannot be refuted.

47,000 pistol applications to date in CT alone since this started in Jan. Thats 4 months. It is startling. NY is has to be a higher rate, just due to the population.

And for the NRA. Where are their adverts? I have seen none, not one on TV or in print. Nice try. What they see is the news and all of the outraged firearm owners bitching about Cuomo and these moronic laws. Really? 7 bullets for self defence but 10 on the range? Thats a real eye roller.

They hear the Sheriffs and local police talk about NOT observing the laws. Counties passing ordinance to ignore the directives of these poorly written and conceived laws.

Notice the number of posters up here who are pro gun? Lots more than when you started. Right?

Just saying that America is headed back to the old ultra liberal gun laws will not make it so Julie. Particularly with the body count climbing daily as it is. More gun deaths in America since 1968 than all of the troops that died all the wars we have ever fought. Denial will not be a match for that growing reality. However it appears to be all you have so you are welcome to it.

BTW – I appreciate all of the pro gun bloggers who make comments here. Some are pretty sharp and have legitimate questions or valid information. However many are so wrapped up in gun lobby dogma they can not think straight. Even they are welcome. It is my pleasure to answer their comments as long as they fall within the TU guidelines. I am certain that the swelling readership appreciates it as well.

But Lawrence, the body count is decreasing. All the FBI and police stats show that.
None of these laws will get the guns out of the hands of the criminal, but criminalise the normally law abiding citizens.

Use a weapon (firearm, knife etc) during a crime, do hard time and I mean hard.

But telling the citizen that 7 rounds for self defence, but 10 is ok on the range is just stupid.

Not to me either, but these laws will not do anything to stop it, even the people who are writing them admit it.

So if its not going to do the job, why pass them and criminalize normally law abif=ding citizens.

2 things we are lacking in this country are good leadership and opportunity. We had both at one time, in my opinion, Kennedy was our last good president. Opportunity? It fled to China and our childrens tomorrow, by the damaged education system.

Pew research 2013.
”
National rates of gun homicide and other violent gun crimes are strikingly lower now than during their peak in the mid-1990s, paralleling a general decline in violent crime, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of government data. Beneath the long-term trend, though, are big differences by decade: Violence plunged through the 1990s, but has declined less dramatically since 2000.

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.

Nearly all the decline in the firearm homicide rate took place in the 1990s; the downward trend stopped in 2001 and resumed slowly in 2007. The victimization rate for other gun crimes plunged in the 1990s, then declined more slowly from 2000 to 2008. The rate appears to be higher in 2011 compared with 2008, but the increase is not statistically significant. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall also dropped in the 1990s before declining more slowly from 2000 to 2010, then ticked up in 2011.

Despite national attention to the issue of firearm violence, most Americans are unaware that gun crime is lower today than it was two decades ago. According to a new Pew Research Center survey, today 56% of Americans believe gun crime is higher than 20 years ago and only 12% think it is lower.”

@Julie 14
You are absolutely right, it is the criminals. But that is the reason that background checks are necessary in the states that do not require them for private sales. Everyday criminals acquire guns in private sales and that number will continue to grow year after year, especially as we see gun purchases spike as they have recently. I side with many gun owners that find fault with some parts of the SAFE Act, especially the magazine limit you mention. But the background check provision is here to stay in NYS, and it should be that way throughout the country.

Keep the SAFE Act safe! This is a land of laws not men/guns…stop allowing the nuts to spill the blood of innocents…who’s crying out for them? When is enough not enough?! Amend the 2nd Amendment…support gun sanity not insanity…and stop bringing religion in to the mix…what would Jesus say? Peace to all and lay down the war of words and really lay down your guns – every/anyone…and, as John Lennon/Yoko Ono said many years ago and still resonates today: War is Over…Amen…Peace!
GPlanteStockade12305

Thank you both for honestly confirming your positions, Lawrence and Tony B, None of that compromise, seek consensus, consider all factors BS, your way or the highway and your sticking to that, no matter what.

I don’t doubt you have convinced yourself, but have you even considered that your, “What we are lacking are politicians who represent the people instead of money” conclusion might just be a denial effort, rather than force yourself to acknowledge that “your message” simply fails to persuade people that a bunch of new regulations, that has little, if any, direct effect on any of the actual causes of unacceptable violence, involving a firearm, will make any meaningful difference?

Excuse me michael, why don’t you try thinking about what I’ve said, rather than piecing together different parts to ty and suggest something I likely wasn’t even thinking about. You really don’t have to try so hard to be a jerk, it’s a safe bet your own instincts will carry towards that goal without a lot of effort.

@Albert J
“What we are lacking are politicians who represent the people instead of money” conclusion might just be a denial effort, rather than force yourself to acknowledge that “your message” simply fails to persuade people that a bunch of new regulations, that has little, if any, direct effect on any of the actual causes of unacceptable violence, involving a firearm, will make any meaningful difference?”

About 90% of Americans agree that more effective background checks are necessary. I believe that they are already persuaded.

Wow Albert! What a zinger! I bet you spent the whole night thinking that up. For a guy who spends 99% of his time sitting at his computer posting blog responses, you’re pretty sensitive. Thanks for the suggestion though. In the spirit of mutual admiration, I suggest that you get a life.

“Abraham Lincoln did not go to Gettysburg having commissioned a poll to find out what would sell in Gettysburg. There were no people with percentages for him, cautioning him about this group or that group or what they found in exit polls a year earlier. When will we have the courage of Lincoln?”
Robert Coles

Gun trafficking, gun suicide, and gun murders associated with domestic violence are all less prevalent in the few states that already require background checks for all handgun sales.

The number of women killed with a firearm by an intimate partner is 38 percent lower in states that require background checks on all handgun sales, even though the non-firearm homicide rates of women by their intimate partners are nearly identical

The firearm suicide rate is 49 percent lower in states that require background checks on all handgun sales, even though the non-firearm suicide rates are nearly identical.

A survey of prisoners who committed crimes with handguns found that 80 percent of them got those guns through private transfers.

Without authorization to conduct a background check, private sellers have no way of knowing if they are selling to a prohibited purchaser. In fact,undercover investigations conducted by New York City in 2009 and 2011 found that 63 percent of private sellers at gun shows and 62 percent of private online sellers were willing to sell a gun to someone even when he said he probably couldn’t pass a background check.

Again and again, dangerous people have skirted the background check system by acquiring guns in unregulated private sales, and innocent people have paid the price.

There is a considerable amount of information and statistics available beyond the accurate information that Lawrence just posted. Gun rights advocates make the common mistake of focusing their attention on the single transfer that would take place when a criminal acquires a gun from a private seller in the majority of states who do not require background checks. While we need to place every legal obstacle we can to prevent these sales from taking place, they are just part of the problem. It is the accumulation of guns that were once legal, but end up becoming the inventory of gun traffickers by private sales that need to be addressed as well. Pro gun advocates always point to the “black market” as an excuse to not expand background checks. “The criminal will always find a way to get a gun”, is what we hear. Where do those guns they “always find a way to get” come from? The majority are from straw sales, stolen weapons, a small percentage of unscrupulous FFL dealers, AND private transfers.

As evidenced by the number of times I have previously stated I am not opposed to expanding Background checks to all firearm transfers, I am not arguing with this idea. What I have trouble with is your insistence on accusing any and all who do disagree with your position of being automatically corrupt and, regarding elected officials, essentially being “bought off”, with out ANY effors to back up those charges, which we both know come directly from the seat of your pants.

Accusing everyone who disagrees with some position of being evil, accomplishes NOTHING, but needlessly irritates people. Your efforts to persuade others to accept your analysiws have simply failed. Your repeated use of statistics NOBODY accepts as accurate does not advance your argument. If you have faith in your argument, rephrase and repackage it. It’s not that people haven’t heard it, it’s that they are not buying into your current presentation.

Hopefully the Expanded Background Check legislation will come up for another vote. If the objections of those opposed are addressed, and ancillary “strings” are kept off the legislation and a workable mechanism, allowing the effort to function without causing unnecessary and cumbersome obstacles, the idea stands a far better chance of passing, which is what making adjustments in search of a consensus is all about.

Successful compromise actually means that neither side is
UNhappy enough to vote against something.

@ Albert J
I always back up my comments Albert. Just because you refuse to accept the fact does not mean that the facts are not before you. They certainly are. Compromise means that both sides are of good will. In this case the main body of republicans could not be farther from good will.

Don’t be stupid about this Lawrence. NO child can own a gun till 18. I doubt very much a child would pass the call in with out a drivers licence.

I have seen Kids, both male and female, between the ages of 12 & 14 in a professionally run environment, do very well.
They learn to deal with adults, not as kids, but young adults.
That carries over into the schools and their grades improve drastically.

As for the Holder admission, I thought of you immediately. You spout the numbers so well and so often, but FAIL to connect the fact, those numbers don’t relate to the gun control laws being debated.

But the average Joe or Jill reading your nasty little posts are actually getting FALSE and misleading information. I swear, you must be in Holders pocket.
So…. How many of these deaths are caused by one of your “Assault” rifles?

@ Julie
It is not stupid to point out at that the 5 year old boy who shot and killed his 2 year old sister had a Cricket rifle that was created specially for small children. Time to wake up and wipe the dogma out of your eyes Julie.

The more conservative laws cover sales and illegal activity of all guns. Not just assault type rifles. However those particular weapons are the guns of choice by many of the mass murderers our country has experienced lately. Do the lives of those victims mean anything to you? You never mention them. All I hear from you is about your precious gun.

@ Julie:
“I have seen Kids, both male and female, between the ages of 12 & 14 in a professionally run environment, do very well.
They learn to deal with adults, not as kids, but young adults.
That carries over into the schools and their grades improve drastically.”

Where is the data? Where are these schools? My kids were all straight A students, and never owned a gun. Not even a toy gun. I chose to raise them in a manner that respected life. My grandchildren are bing raised in a similar way, even with a Marine as a father.

There are countless other ways to teach children to relate to adults. And a number of ways to improve grades. None of them include guns.

C’mon, Lawrence, “In this case the main body of republicans could not be farther from good will” is just dumb. You have no idea who “the main body of republicans” are, much less what they’re thinking, or why.

You haven’t backed up up any of your overly generalized rantings, with anything other than your personal “assessments” and opinions, which are based entirely by input from “the seat of your pants”. It’s ridiculous rhetoric, from both extremes of this debate, that is grinding the discussion down into useless, indecipherable “background noise”.

There’s a letter (to the editor) in today’s T/U from an individual who wants to purchase a hand gun from a licensed neighbor, and is totally willing to abide by each and every requirement of NY SAFE, but cannot find any licensed firearm dealer willing to process the paperwork. Advice from the NY SAFE “Hotline” is limited to “keep trying”.

Do you think figuring out a process whereby those willing to comply with the law, would be reasonably able to, should have been considered, tested and established BEFORE creating the finished product? There are always unanticipated “land mines” with any legislation and ramming a law through under a phoney “emergency” basis, without the necessary and appropriate thought and consideration, is no way to discover land mines without stepping on them.

You keep complaining about those 30 people every day who are lost to gun violence, and each day the extreme ends of this debate spend lobbing verbal hand grenades at each other keeps pushing people apart is another 30 people. At some point you have to consider which is more important, spiking the football or finding a compromise that will impact that number.

@ Albert J
Really? So you think that republicans voting in a lock step block against legislation they came up with but now oppose because Mr. Obama supports it is good will?

If the person can not find a gun dealer to process the transaction it is problem with gun dealers, not the law. There are at least a dozen gun stores in our area for crying out loud. If the process jams up it is because of those who oppose the law. Not those who support it.

The 30 people who die everyday from gun violence are by far more important than hurt feelings on this blog.

According to FBI data, 8,583 people were murdered with firearms in 2011. Only 496 people were killed by blunt objects, a category that includes not just hammers and baseball bats but crowbars, rocks, paving stones, statuettes, and electric guitars. So you are off by a factor of at least 17. In fact gun violence deaths in America since 1968 outnumber all the deaths of all of our troops in all of the wars we have ever fought as a country. We have a gun problem in America and the old ultra liberal gun laws are to blame.

“In fact gun violence deaths in America since 1968 outnumber all the deaths of all of our troops in all of the wars we have ever fought as a country.”

So since 1968 2,717,991 people have been killed. Right?

“We have a gun problem in America and the old ultra liberal gun laws are to blame.”

I blame the liberals who feel sorry for the poor criminal and give them rights greater than the victims.
I blame the prosecutors who plead them down.
I blame the lack of education and the lack of opportunity for these people to be able to avoid a criminal life style.

But I don’t blame the pencil for libel, nor the spoon for making some one fat.

@ Julie
About 1.4 million firearm deaths in America compared with 1.2 million in war. Those were the numbers at the beginning of the year.

Liberals do not feel sorry for criminals. In fact liberals want the focus to be on violent criminals not low level recreational drug offenders who take up 60% of our jail space and clog up the courts. I do agree with you on the lack of education and opportunity though.

Finally, take the gun out of the criminal’s hands and how many victims will there be from spoon attacks?

Really. Which of these numbers are false? The number of people killed by rifles? That’s FBI data.

The fact that NYSAFE is pushed primarily towards rifles and NOT hand guns?

Really. Please.

I really didn’t see any thing in the laws about having to register my pistols with the police, as the hand guns already are.
A Ruger 10-22 is OK, but with a pistol grip, it is DANGEROUS needs to be registered, an AR-15-22 (.22 caliber)Also too dangerous to no6t register.

The main law that would affect hand guns is 10 rounds on the range, but only 7 for self protection.

Of the 59 licensing jurisdictions in NY State, 55 issue pistol licenses through the courts with a judge serving as the licensing officer. Background investigations however are conducted by the local law enforcement agencies. The remaining jurisdictions, New York City, Nassau and Suffolk Counties have licensing officers that are either Police Commissioners or a Sheriff.

If you attempt to sell ANY GUN through a straw sale or without a background check you will now be a felony. Why would you object to that?

The pistol permit stuff you have correct. Not only does some one need to be vetted by the local police, but the FBI and further criminal investigation that is well detailed.

To buy a hand gun? Need the back ground check. Buy a rifle? Need a back ground check.

Buy a rifle or hand gun via the Internet? Its is shipped by FEDEX to a local FFL. On pick up? A back ground check.

If I want the rifle that my brother owned before he died? It cannot just be willed to me? I’d have to have a police officer take it to an approved FFL, ship it to MY FFL, then fill out the paperwork and pay the $45.00 for BOTH FFLs AND shipping?

But. back on topic
You said :”Your information is false.”

Really? These laws are NOT about hand guns, but for the most part RIFLES. So your quoting 30 is incorrect when discussing these laws.

The more you opine, Lawrence, the more it seems your primary interest is becoming more about reading your own words than any serious effort to reach a solution to the problem of unreasonable violence.

“My way of the highway” works some of the time, but not very often on really important matters. When people have somewhat of a say in what is required, the requirements tend to be followed a lot more closely.

Other than serving as a vivid example of what a seriously troubled mind can produce, something most people already clearly comprehend, what value is there in referencing Adam Lanza, who is no longer any threat.

So, according to Al, only a “troubled mind” would reference Adam Lanza who is no longer a threat. Al believes that what happened to Lanza’s victims has no relevance anymore to a discussion of laws pertaining to guns. Brilliant logic! Being the objective thinker that Al is, I’m sure he must think that further discussion and hearings with respect to the Benghazi incident are being pursued by “troubled minds” too. Oh, what a minute. Never mind. Those are Republicans going up against the administration. I’m sure Al will explain, in 300 words or more, why that’s different. Al, your complete lack of objectivity is a given, but when you, of all people, say that someone else’s primary interest (who happens to disagree with you of course) is reading their own words, you’re a laugh riot.

I am not arguing. But people with ‘a seriously troubled mind’ are still people. Imagine, for one second what medication and help could offer them.

They are not less human than you or I. They are ill. Maybe accessible treatment would work better than a gun?

I don’t proclaim to have all of the answers. Nor am I a ‘gun grabber’.

I am not a religious freak. But I do believe every human was made in God’s image. You can’t shoot them. Or fry them. Or dispose of them. Or plug them. They are us. And we are them.

The criminal. The scumbag. The ‘illegal’ Mexicans.

What about the enraged spouse? The teen who can get a gun to end his life? The poor, the rich, the depressed, the militant? The babies who obtain guns by their parents? It’s a problem.

I understand challenging Mr. White. Or Jeff G. But Albert J, I don’t disparage the character of those who take the time to post.

I will fight tooth and nail when bigotry is in the mix. That allows for mass killing. Genocide. YOU look into the faces of Bosnian women after their husbands have been ‘cleansed’ from society. I have. It is tragic. You look into the face of a family member who survived the Holocaust. Changes things.

Forget what, that a troubled mind is capable of doing terrible things? Is anything you’re proposing, or in favor of, going to prevent another Adam Lanza?

Did Republicans have any input to NY SAFE? Were Republican amendments to federal legislation seriously considered? Have you been able to explain your ideas, or have you even tried to explain what and how they might accomplish what you are suggesting?

Perhaps if you spent as much effort on justifying your conclusions, with something a little more tangible than, “Because I think so”, than just repeating them and accusing everyone who doesn’t understand the value of them of being insensitive, uncaring and unconcerned, you’d change some minds.

@Lawrence, I think I said this before but actual facts and data seem to go over most heads. They can’t comprehend separating truth from their own opinions, which are not supported by actual data. I guess some find it hard to believe they could actually be proven wrong so they choose to be ignorant to facts instead. Sad.